1. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Deputy Advocate General on this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. The Petitioner is a Co-Operative Society.

2. This matter arises from a proceeding pending before the Registrar under the provisions of Chhattisgarh Public Trust Act, 1951, for short 'the Act'. An application under Section 4 of that Act was filed in February, 2004 by Mahant Shri Gautamanand Brahmachari Sarvarakar. That application was for registration of a Public Trust in relation to the properties, including temples, elaborated in that application, which is Annexure-P/2 to this petition. It appears that the proceedings dragged on and ultimately the applicant therein died in October, 2012 and thereupon the Registrar proceeded with the matter as a suo motu one, showing the State of Chhattisgarh and Respondents No.2 to 4 herein as well as the Petitioner–Co-Operative Society as parties. During the course of such proceedings, an order was issued by this Court on 16.07.2014 in Writ Petition (227) No.523 of 2014 directing culmination of proceedings by the Registrar within a period of two months. That did not happen. However, while the Registrar pursued the effort to give opportunity to the parties to examine themselves, the cross-examination of the 3rd Respondent by the Petitioner was objected. The Registrar upheld that objection in view of the direction of the High Court for culmination of the proceedings in a time bound manner. The Petitioner invoked Section 27 of the Act and moved the District Judge against that decision. That was dismissed. Hence, this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.

3. Having heard the submissions by the learned counsel for the parties appearing at hearing, it is apposite to note that the finality of the entries made by the Registrar and the conclusiveness of that finality is subject to the decision of the Court in a suit challenging the findings of the Registrar. In Hasan Nurani Malak Vs. S.M. Ismail, Assistant Charity Commissioner, Nagpur; AIR 1967 SC 1742, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the cause of action for such a suit is the finding of the Registrar and not the entry. It is thus manifest that the Registrar has to enter a finding on the question, among other issues, as to whether the Trust in question exists; and whether it is a Public Trust. The identity of the immovable and movable Trust properties and the particulars thereof, as well as their approximate value, are matters to be placed before the Registrar along with the application for registration of the Trust. Section 5 of the Act provides for inquiry on the application for registration. It enjoins that different matters enumerated in Subsection (1) of that section have to be ascertained by inquiring in the prescribed manner. The question whether any property is the property of such Trust is also to be inquired. The Registrar is obliged to give a finding as to whether there is a Trust and if so, whether it is a Public Trust. That authority is obliged to enter a finding in that regard, only after complying the mandatory provisions of Sections 5, 6 and 7 of the Act. Vaishnav Das Vs. Registrar, Public Trust, 1962 JLJ SN 207 (DB) is authority for the position that adequate opportunity should be given to the person challenging the declaration of a Public Trust. These principles are fundamental. They are mentioned here and now, having regard to the plea of the Petitioner before the Registrar and the District Court that it holds title to the property in question, on the basis of a transaction which is traced to the earlier true owner who is stated to be predecessor of the 2nd Respondent herein.

4. Though, it may be doubtful whether an application under Section 27 of the Act was maintainable before the Court on the issue in hand, and as against the refusal of the Registrar to permit cross-examination; with the passage of time, it needs to be noted that further proceedings before the Registrar